Why Sony’s PSP Go speed boost won’t up the eye candy

An FCC filing shows that the top CPU speed on Sony's forthcoming PSP Go will …

SonyInsider dug up an FCC filing that indicates that the forthcoming PSP Go will have a significantly faster top processor speed than than current PSP models. Specifically, the Go's CPU can clock up to 480MHz, compared to the 333MHz speed of the existing models.

The site ends the post by asking the obvious question: "What will a 480MHz PSP Go bring to the table?" I suspect the answer to this is, "Nothing that hasn't already been announced." Let me explain.

If Sony is going to transition from physical media to digital distribution and an app store model, it will want to take full advantage of a very old technology that cuts back on download times by trading processor cycles for network bandwidth and storage space: compression. UMD PSP games are already highly compressed, and this accounted for the initial PSP models' epic load times—load times that were decreased with later additions of more memory for caching uncompressed data.

PSP Go users will be relying on wireless connections to move content onto the device, and right now PSP games max out at 1.8GB, which is the size of a UMD. My guess is that Sony will loosen the 1.8GB size restriction at some point, so PSP users may end up with relatively large game downloads. When you add in any downloadable game add-ons and expansions that Sony makes available, it's clear that the 16GB of storage on the device will be fairly precious. It's also the case that it costs money to serve up large downloads—bandwidth is not yet free. So developers will get pressure from Sony to keep file sizes down in order to minimize transport charges. All of this indicates that compression will be every bit as important as it was in the UMD era, if not more so.

My guess is that the extra 147MHz that the Go will ship with will be used to unpack game data that has been compressed to the gills. It may also go to non-game, Go-specific applications, like a browser. Where it will probably not go, however, is toward improved graphics for games.

For the foreseeable future, the PSP Go is likely to represent a very small fraction of the PSP installed base, so it makes little sense for a developer to spend any resources on higher quality assets for a version of a game that will only reach a tiny slice of users.

So as much as I'd like to fantasize about improved visuals on Sony's new UMD-less handheld, I'm afraid we'll have to wait for the second-generation PSP to get anything like that. And given the financial shape that Sony is in right now, I can imagine that the company is currently more focused on looking for ways—like the PSP Go and online game store—to monetize existing technology investments than it is on accelerating the production of the next portable console.�

Get used to the PSP's graphics, because they'll probably be with us for some time to come.

56 Reader Comments

This doesn't actually make a lot of sense to me. I assume that there's a flow where first the game and the assets that it needs for, say, the active "scene" are decompressed, then the game starts playing. Once the decompression is over...then the processor is fully available. I don't see them deliberately make a super complicated mechanism that keeps part of the processor busy with decompressing assets needed in the future in a separate thread or whatever.

Reading this, and interpreting it my own way, I would say that the load times should be reduced across the board(yay!) and potentially higher frame rates or higher complexity will be possible during gameplay. Whether game designers actually do that - make tweaks to the game so that it looks better on the new hotness than on the old n' busted, remains to be seen, but I don't seen any reason why they wouldn't choose to.

Really I don't see any merit to this idea that Sony is just going to squander the higher clockspeed on background or irrelevant tasks. It's more or less a single-task machine, and I would think that when there's a game going on, there won't be much else happening.

Originally posted by Dave Cattran:This doesn't actually make a lot of sense to me. I assume that there's a flow where first the game and the assets that it needs for, say, the active "scene" are decompressed, then the game starts playing. Once the decompression is over...then the processor is fully available. I don't see them deliberately make a super complicated mechanism that keeps part of the processor busy with decompressing assets needed in the future in a separate thread or whatever.

All modern consoles have some sort of content streaming, be it levels, models, videos, sounds or textures, using extra cycles to load the files form the HD over to RAM is common practice. You may get a performance boost if the content is already decompressed in the HD, but if you need to decompressed it first and then load it to RAM that could be a hit in performance if all of your clock cycles are already used up.

I don't think developers will have to come up with their own routines to decompress files, it is very feasible to have the Go constantly decompressing files through firmware as part of it's pre-cache operation.

Yeah, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. The more effective comprsesion algorithms tend to be asymetric, with encode times slower than decode times. And it's pretty easy to tune compression for particualar memory requirements and CPU load, which could even vary for different sections of the game.

And, of course, there's plenty of time when games aren't loading much. Do PSP games do a lot of streaming from UMD?

Anyway, it'd be really odd to assign a fixed portion of CPU to decode.

I would expect the extra cpu horsepower to help with some games. So far it seems that the PSP Go GPU is not changed, so raw graphical drawing performance is not going to change. But the cpu is involved in much of the graphics code, game logic etc. The game developer has to define a balance between framerate, graphical goodness and game logic. The developer may target an average framerate of say 30fps, but this may sometimes dip a bit lower due to demands at that point in time, and that would probably be an acceptable compromise. If that slowdown was due to the code being cpu bound, which is fairly likely, then a faster cpu should help reduce those incidents. So while I would expect the graphical detail to be the same, I would also expect the PSP Go with a cpu running at the faster speed to deliver a slightly smoother graphical experience in those games that are currently cpu bound. Having said that, maybe existing games will force the cpu to run at the slower rate for compatibility?

Actually, stuff on the UMD is not compressed. It's just that UMD drive is freaking slow.

Proof? The early days of PSP piracy - it was worth it to dump your ISO file to a memory stick because you could get speedups of at least 2 times. This was raw ISO files read off the 1.8GB UMD and onto the memory stick. Much bigger speedups were often reported though, but the game was snappier and loading screens weren't a pain anymore.

The PSP2000s added a faster UMD drive and double the memory - the added memory served as a disk cache.

In fact, one trick learned during the early days of piracy was the "null removal" - because the UMD drive is constant angular velocity (CAV), one trick that a lot of developers did was to push the game data to the edge of the disc (UMD, like CDs and DVDs, read from inside-out), where the UMD would transfer data much faster, much like the old "52x Max" CD-ROM drives back in the day. Of course, this made the ISO images bigger, so the ISOs were often repacked into new ISOs where the nulls were removed, turning your easily 1.5GB dump back down to 500MB or smaller.

These days though, you'll find people compress the ISOs - they will dump them, then run a compression routine on them to make them smaller. This eliminates the need to repack the ISO (compression gets rid of most of it), but at the cost of slower loading times (since the CPU has to decompress the data).

It's no surprise that Sony will go this route as well - I'm sure the games Sony will have for the Go will be in a DRM-wrapped compressed ISO. But to prevent it from loading slower than the UMD drive, give the CPU a boost and it'll decompress faster. I will note that games even in compressed ISO format load faster than UMD. But digital download games may load slower on the regular PSP compared to the Go.

And FYI - one of the latest custom firmware updates fixed an issue with slow memory stick access, so that go even faster as well.

The PSP's problem was the UMD drive - it was too damn slow. It's no wonder people hack their PSPs because dumping the game from UMD to memory stick just improves gaming experience dramatically by reducing the load times. Heck, I never play from UMD anymore - the instant I buy a PSP game, it's dumped (conveniently, you can do it via USB) and compressed, then put on a memory stick.

The interesting question is how will sony handle the UMD to PSP Go conversion process.

The more effective comprsesion algorithms tend to be asymetric, with encode times slower than decode times.

That's only for video, which is lossy. Data compression needs to be lossless, so you lose any real asymmetry.

quote:

Proof? The early days of PSP piracy - it was worth it to dump your ISO file to a memory stick because you could get speedups of at least 2 times. This was raw ISO files read off the 1.8GB UMD and onto the memory stick. Much bigger speedups were often reported though, but the game was snappier and loading screens weren't a pain anymore.

Sorry; that doesn't constitute proof. Just because the data on the disk is compressed doesn't mean that drive speed suddenly becomes a non-factor.

Really, how much data on the UMD was compressed depends entirely on the game. I'm sure there were games that used no compression, and I'm sure there were games that used lots. What most improved load times was the recognition of game developers that "bad loadtimes = pissed off customers/crappy reviews." At which point they actually started caring about load times.

So assuming compression is the real reason for the extra clock (I'm dubious), then would that mean that games will require more storage on the older PSPs than they require on the Go? If they don't have the extra 44% clock to decompress stuff on the fly, then wouldn't it have to be decompressed ahead of time?

While the extra speed would certainly be useful for on-the-fly decompression, I seriously doubt that's its only purpose, and if you use it for that, then you've basically made a Go-specific game anyway, unless you alter it as I mentioned above.

As a PSP programmer, I can tell you that initial speed jump to 333 was a god send... an additional 150Mhz would definitely be useful!The original PSP graphics hardware had a pretty big bug which caused near plane clipping of polygons to simply drop out (generally big ground poly's)... this meant that instead of handing off your whole scene to the graphics hardware, you had to step through the drawing primitives using the CPU, and manually clip the polygons.Unless Sony have fixed this, the additional CPU time could very well increase frame rates and polygon counts, because we'd have more CPU time to traverse more poly's during the clipping phase.Additional CPU time would also be useful in decompressing streaming assets (3d scene data, sprites, textures) so that the initial game download is kept small.

Originally posted by kobolds:the most important problem with psp go is the price tag

Nah, the PSP Go is pretty good value. The same price as a 16GB iPod touch, but the PSP Go has better games, bluetooth and better sound quality.

The problem is cheap trailer-trash you want everything cheaply and don't understand that quality costs money (you would have 7x RROD returns would have told them that by now, but clearly the Xbox-lovin trailertrash are too thick to understand this concept).

Any chance the faster processor is just cheaper to produce? I don't think the compression argument makes any sense since the umd based PSP's will be able to download games as well. I haven't played any iphone games, but the PSP's graphics seem to be on the highend for handhelds.

Originally posted by ManicMiner:Nah, the PSP Go is pretty good value. The same price as a 16GB iPod touch, but the PSP Go has better games, bluetooth and better sound quality.

The problem is cheap trailer-trash you want everything cheaply and don't understand that quality costs money (you would have 7x RROD returns would have told them that by now, but clearly the Xbox-lovin trailertrash are too thick to understand this concept).

What was that? I couldn't hear you with Sony's nuts lodged in your throat. For $250 I can pick up a Wii or an Iphone 3GS 32gig, or even a 360 arcade. All would be better values than this atrocity. Even if the system was worth that, it's psychologically too high a price whether one can afford it or not. I'll stick with a psp-3000, I'm not blinded by unfaithful devotion to a brand name company. If you want to pick one up Day One, by all means, just stfu about being l33t for having one, you sound like a giant yuppie douchebag elitist.

P.S., I doubt "trailer trash" has the money nor desire to plop down several hundred for "any" high end system so think harder next time you want to slight anyone that is not a sony fanboy.

Proof? The early days of PSP piracy - it was worth it to dump your ISO file to a memory stick because you could get speedups of at least 2 times. This was raw ISO files read off the 1.8GB UMD and onto the memory stick. Much bigger speedups were often reported though, but the game was snappier and loading screens weren't a pain anymore.

Sorry; that doesn't constitute proof. Just because the data on the disk is compressed doesn't mean that drive speed suddenly becomes a non-factor.

Really, how much data on the UMD was compressed depends entirely on the game. I'm sure there were games that used no compression, and I'm sure there were games that used lots. What most improved load times was the recognition of game developers that "bad loadtimes = pissed off customers/crappy reviews." At which point they actually started caring about load times.

I think his complaint stems from this line in the article:

quote:

UMD PSP games are already highly compressed, and this accounted for the initial PSP models' epic load times—load times that were decreased with later additions of more memory for caching uncompressed data.

In other words, you cannot attribute "epic load times" to the console, if the decision is per-developer. Additionally, when taking the UMD out of the equation (in support of tlhIngan's original statement) and moving the ISO to a memory stick, if you see a speed increase, then it indicates it's not solely the game artifacts causing the slowdowns.

Nah, the PSP Go is pretty good value. The same price as a 16GB iPod touch, but the PSP Go has better games, bluetooth and better sound quality.

Taken straight from Sony's (poor) marketing.

The PSP go is more expensive than a PSP + 16GB flash. And lacks a UMD drive.

And the Touch? You mean the PSP has the really nice Ipod interface, a responsive touch screen, has a very functional library management system, and has access to the thousands of sweet apps in the Apple App store? Wait, no? They why the hell would you compare it to the iPod touch?

Sony's problem is it thinks any product it does is somehow as popular and important as the Walkman. It's not.

For sure a higher clock speed will increase decompression speeds, that much is obvious. Analyzing the decision any further in that direction is frivolous. Its certainly not going to suddenly increase the amount of compression possible *and* speed up decompression.

How exactly would Sony "deny" developers access to these extra cycles? If there are CPU bound calculations they will benefit, and this may result in better graphics. It all depends on how the developers are distributing workloads between CPU/GPU, shuffling data around, AI etc etc.

If you're saying that they're probably now paying the same amount for the 480s that they used to pay for the 333s, then that's probably true, but that would mean that the 333s are cheaper now, which would explain why now they're selling for less, and the Go is selling for the original price of the PSP.

Originally posted by Shudder:The PSP go is more expensive than a PSP + 16GB flash. And lacks a UMD drive.

Did you not read the article, or any of the comments in the thread? It also has a substantially more powerful processor. Those don't come for free.

We also don't know what other improvements have been made, if any.

They probably have several die shrinks and the "substantially more powerful processor" is just a revised version of the current 3000 one. So they are actually paying the same amount or less. Not only that, it only has 16GB of memory and a smaller casing. All this for the same price of a iPod touch 2g without a touch screen. The unit should be at least $80 cheaper. It's a ridiculous price. I am in electronics manufacturing too, and the tooling the new go is a wash compared to the 3000. Plus the screen sucks too, look below.

quote:

Originally posted by ManicMiner:

quote:

Originally posted by kobolds:the most important problem with psp go is the price tag

Nah, the PSP Go is pretty good value. The same price as a 16GB iPod touch, but the PSP Go has better games, bluetooth and better sound quality.

The problem is cheap trailer-trash you want everything cheaply and don't understand that quality costs money (you would have 7x RROD returns would have told them that by now, but clearly the Xbox-lovin trailertrash are too thick to understand this concept).

Dude you are insane. The iPod touch 2g has a faster processor than the PSP go plus it has a touch screen. Not only that the screen on the PSP go is actually worse than the iPod touch 2g which has been out for a year now and the go is not even out yet. The touch is a 3.5" screen and the go is a 3.8" screen but the touch is 480x320 pixel resolution at 163 pixels per inch and the PSP go is only 480x272. Not only that, the iPod touch has a great browser, multiple app capabilities, a seamless delivery system, Nike+ built-in and uses the current accessory eco-system unlike the PSP go which will require all new shit!

So now faster processors are cheaper in one device, yet more expensive in another device?

I know you guys think the Go is "overpriced," and I don't necessarily disagree, but I really do think your arguments are starting to strain any reasonable definition of "rational thought."

My guess is that the higher price of the Go is primarily due to the standing-ovation-inducing margins that Sony promised the retailers, but I don't believe for one second that the 480 MHz procs that they're putting in the Go are anything but more expensive than the 333 MHz procs that they put in the 3000. More expensive than the 333 MHz procs they put in the 1000 five years ago? Probably not. But almost assuredly more expensive than the 333 MHz procs they're buying today for the 3000.

Originally posted by serversurfer:Aren't slower chips cheaper, or does everyone charge me more for faster chips just because they're a bunch of dicks?

Actually, so long as they are all on the same process, faster chips and slower chips all cost exactly the same to make. It is just that the faster chips can be more rare, depending on the product. But if you are running a product that runs at a low clock frequency that has already been shrunk twice with a very refined process (which can probably be assumed with the PSP), chances are that the fast ones aren't all that rare anymore.

Sony is probably buying these chips from Toshiba. Sony sold their fab to Toshiba back in 2008 with a lengthy agreement.

I doubt that Sony designed in any frequency or multiplier lock. Why would they do that to their own embedded product? There is no reason to, unlike what Intel and AMD do. So they just buy "parts". And they run at whatever frequency they run at. And apparently there are enough of them running at 480MHz that they thought they could start clocking them at that frequency.

"“From my point of view I’ve got to think, ‘Do I want to stock this?’ Right now I can’t see any justification for stocking it,” Chips’ joint MD Don McCabe told us. “Certainly I’m not getting the response from consumers. Normally when a new piece of kit is launched or announced I’ll get a multitude of people saying ‘As soon as that comes out I want one of those.’ [Potential] first adopters are on the phone within seconds of it being announced and you’ve got your pre-orders. I don’t have a single pre-order for PSP Go at the moment.”"

In order to get some of those sweet, sweet margins, first you have to sell one.

It isn't too surprising that demand for the PSP Go is not all that high. It really isn't offering anything revolutionary - as it seems the only one who can get away with that (handheld-wise) is Nintendo - and it isn't it a price-point which would do current owners any favours, or new-to-PSP purchasers any real service from day one. The majority of the PSP library is still UMD, and the hackers already have the ability to play non-UMD / used-to-be-but-not-anymore-UMD games. Though, that all said, there wasn't a lot of pre-demand for the later iterations of the PSP, and those have still managed to sell well enough. I think we should withhold judgement until due course. But I don't know many who are that interested in one, myself included.

Also, even though I know that CPU can help with some processes graphics-wise, since there isn't anything major happening *GPU-wise* was anyone really expecting the Go to have notably better graphics capabilities, especially considering when Sony kept showing off the device they didn't talk about better graphics? I know I wasn't. And I don't know anyone (including my fellow game developer colleagues) who were. Leave it to an Ars article to make an issue where there didn't seem to be one earlier. Why not make an article that says "Why Sony's PSP Go speed boost won't up the Wi-Fi speed / screen brightness / possibility for surround-sound / etc., etc.."? Or are you saving that for some time shortly before release?

quote:

That would explain why the PSN is free...

Someone sees the word "Sony" in a post title and decides to make a joke. How frightfully clever of you!

But I'm not surprised that Edge managed to find a retailer that didn't want to stock the Go. Maybe that guy should try lowering the price. There are already retailers taking pre-orders on it, even in the UK, and I won't be surprised to see more as we get closer to launch. LinkyLinky

But I'm not surprised that Edge managed to find a retailer that didn't want to stock the Go. Maybe that guy should try lowering the price. There are already retailers taking pre-orders on it, even in the UK, and I won't be surprised to see more as we get closer to launch. LinkyLinky

Good for them? It is pretty normal to see pre-order links. The question is whether or not people are actually clicking on them and putting their money down.

I'm betting that it won't exactly be tearing up the charts come October. It is just too expensive.

Originally posted by ShapeGSX:Maybe they will. But they have to design the motherboard around it. It would mean another rev.

If it's the same chip and the same process, then why wouldn't it be a drop-in replacement, just like every other CPU of identical design and varying speeds?

quote:

Good for them? It is pretty normal to see pre-order links. The question is whether or not people are actually clicking on them and putting their money down.

Those were just to refute your implication that no one wanted to carry it, but again, you knew that.

quote:

I'm betting that it won't exactly be tearing up the charts come October. It is just too expensive.

I also doubt it will "tear up the charts," but I expect it will sell reasonably well, despite the price. It's smaller and faster than the current model, and it's got a tethering BT module built it, all of which add to the manufacturing costs. Of course, you knew that too.

Will it sell as well as the DS? Probably not, since the DS is cheaper, but it will sell fairly well, since it's also considerably more powerful than the DS. I expect moderate success at launch, and after they've milked the early adopters for the MSRP, retailers will start the price wars, and of course, sales will increase as a result of that.

You know, Nintendo took the GBA slot out of the DS, and then started charging 50% more for it, just like Sony is doing. I guess that makes them just as bad as Sony. Worse, probably, since they did it first.